Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1887-06-16


Such feeling might be most ruin
Gus mistake. Could they not have
used the word knotC where they
have said efeel that their homes
are here, - ETC.. etc.2 Their allu-
sion to the constitution and the
treaty is equally deceptive. The
constitution hasnever been invok-
ed In the matter Of the ireedmen's
treaty rights but once, and that
was in The case of the socalled
"grass-money," +" when the council,
availing itself of its constitutional
power to construe all treaty stipu-
Iations, declared that the ninth
article of the treaty Of 1866 fails to
give the Cherokee freedmen any
right whatsoever to the public
monies and public lands of the
Cherokee nation. These are the
laws which the Downing party
would find on the statute books,
and which their platform does not
even intimate any intention to re-
peal, but on the contrary, guaran-
tees to all classes equal justice in
the execution thereof. If it had
not been intended to deceive un-
suspecting freedmen and others
into voting unawares, that plat
form might have exposed its pres
ent meaning by declaring in plain
er words the determination of the
Downing party to enforce the So
called "blood laws" as they now
stand in the Cherokee statutes.
Really, this entire article is sim
ply subterfuge somewhat skill
fully, not TO say cunningly, de-
vised for the purpose of decoying
freedmen and other adopted citi-
zens into voting against their own
best interests.
The National party has treated
this same question in far differ
ent and perfectly straightforward
manner, in the seventh article OF
their platform. In said seventh
article the National party pledges
itself to all citizens adopted by
treaty for call the rights of native
Cherokees." This expression, as
you know is the language, verba-
tim, of the ninth article of the
treaty of 1866. Again they invite
reference to the proper judicial
tribunal hereafter to be designated
for the final settlement Of all ques-
tions arising wherein honest differ
ences of opinion may arise with
reference to the true meaning oi
any provisions of law or treaty.
This is the very theory upon which
won your case in restitution at
Washington. Senate bill number
1900 which appropriates $4,000
to reimburse the freemen, Shaw
nees and Delawares for the money
of which they are barred because
they are not of Cherokee blood
points both nay clients and the
Cherokee government to Judge
Parker's court at Fort Smith for
final determination of our treaty
rights in this matter. Said senate
bill 1900 passed the United States
senate in the forty-ninth congress
and will no doubt be enacted into
law by the fiftieth congress which
meets on the first Monday in De-
cember.
How awkwardly ! would be
placed as attorney for the Chero-
kee freedmen, ifI should be con.
fronted at Washington with GER
titled vote of my clients, cast in
August against their own bill as
contained in the seventh article OF
the Bunch platform and in favor
of the fifth article OF the Downing
platform which latter promises
you the execution of the very laws
| am declaring oppressive, instead
of the provisions of the treaty OF
1866 and the terms Of senate bill
1900, already referred to and de-
scribed. l write this letter as
your attorney in the case at Wash
ington for the purpose Of warning
through you such Of my clients as
reside near you that / am Of opin-
ion that their vote cast for the Mayes
platform would likely have the
effect Of defeating their bill al
Washington and Of finally turning
them over to the tender mercies
OF the Cherokee laws as they now
exist upon that question. | leave
this place tonight for my h ONE at
st. Louis, whittier ! shall be pleas
ed to hear from you. Make my
kindest regards to all the friends al
Tahlequah. Very truly your friend,
J.MILToy TURNER,
Attorney for Cherokee freedmen,
st. Louis Mo.